patent infringement – VentureBeathttp://venturebeat.com
News About Tech, Money and InnovationFri, 09 Dec 2016 15:31:25 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6.178053529Copyright 2016, VentureBeatVentureBeathttp://vbstatic.co/brand/img/logos/VB_Extended_Logo_40H.pnghttp://venturebeat.com
25040Venturebeat.comU.S. Supreme Court backs Samsung in iPhone patent infringement casehttp://venturebeat.com/2016/12/06/u-s-supreme-court-backs-samsung-in-iphone-patent-infringement-case/
http://venturebeat.com/2016/12/06/u-s-supreme-court-backs-samsung-in-iphone-patent-infringement-case/#respondTue, 06 Dec 2016 21:32:18 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=2124970(By Andrew Chung, Reuters) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with Samsung in its big-money smartphone patent fight with Apple, throwing out an appeals court ruling that the South Korean company had to pay a $399 million penalty to its American rival for copying key iPhone designs. The 8-0 ruling, written by Justice Sonia […]
]]>

(By Andrew Chung, Reuters) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with Samsung in its big-money smartphone patent fight with Apple, throwing out an appeals court ruling that the South Korean company had to pay a $399 million penalty to its American rival for copying key iPhone designs.

The 8-0 ruling, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held that a patent violator does not always have to fork over its entire profits from the sales of products using stolen designs, if the designs covered only certain components and not the whole thing.

The justices sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington to determine how much Samsung must pay. But they did not provide a road map to juries and lower courts on how to navigate similar disputes in the future.

Apple spokesman Josh Rosenstock said in a statement, “We remain optimistic that the lower courts will again send a powerful signal that stealing isn’t right.” A representative for Samsung did not immediately comment.

Following a 2012 jury verdict favoring Apple, Samsung initially was hit with nearly $930 million in penalties, later cut by $382 million, for infringing Apple’s iPhone patents and mimicking its distinctive appearance in making the Galaxy and other competing devices.

Samsung in December 2015 paid its Cupertino, California-based rival $548 million. But Samsung took the matter to the Supreme Court, saying it should not have had to make $399 million of that payout for copying the patented designs of the iPhone’s rounded-corner front face, bezel and colorful grid of icons that represent programs and applications.

With the products that used iPhone designs, Samsung went on to become the world’s top smartphone maker.

Tuesday’s ruling followed a ferocious legal battle between the world’s top two smartphone manufacturers that began in 2011 when Apple sued Samsung for patent and trademark infringement. It was one of the most closely watched patent cases to come before the top U.S. court in recent years.

The legal dispute centered on whether the term “article of manufacture,” on which design patent damages are calculated in U.S. patent law, should be interpreted as a finished product in its entirety, or merely a component in a complex product.

In court papers, Samsung, Apple and the U.S. government all agreed that the term could mean a component.

But Apple urged the Supreme Court to affirm the appeals court’s ruling because Samsung presented no evidence that the article of manufacture in this case was anything less than its entire smartphone as sold. Samsung, meanwhile, said that it did not have to present such evidence.

Sotomayor, writing for the unanimous court, said that the law is clear. The term “article of manufacture is broad enough to encompass both a product sold to a consumer as well as a component of that product,” she wrote.

Period of uncertainty

The justices nevertheless refused to devise a test for juries and lower courts to use to discern what a relevant article of manufacture is in a particular case, a task that could be fraught with difficulty when considering high-tech products.

“No doubt whether with Apple-Samsung, or some other design patent case, we are going to have a period of uncertainty where courts will be trying to formulate a test and what the boundaries are,” Richard McKenna, an expert in design rights at the law firm Foley & Lardner in Milwaukee, said in an interview.

In court papers, Apple said its iPhone’s success was tied to innovative designs, which other manufacturers quickly adopted in their own products. Samsung, in particular, made a deliberate decision to copy the iPhone’s look and many user interface features, Apple said.

Samsung argued that it should not have had to turn over all its profits, saying that design elements contributed only marginally to a complex product with thousands of patented features.

Design patent fights very rarely reach the Supreme Court. It had not heard such a case in more than 120 years.

The case is Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd v. Apple Inc, in the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 15-777.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham)

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2016/12/06/u-s-supreme-court-backs-samsung-in-iphone-patent-infringement-case/feed/02124970U.S. Supreme Court backs Samsung in iPhone patent infringement caseGroupon sues IBM over location-based patenthttp://venturebeat.com/2016/05/09/groupon-sues-ibm-over-location-based-patent/
http://venturebeat.com/2016/05/09/groupon-sues-ibm-over-location-based-patent/#respondMon, 09 May 2016 23:00:24 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=1946662(Reuters) – The online marketplace Groupon has sued IBM, accusing it of infringing a patent related to technology that helps businesses solicit customers based on the customers’ locations at a given moment. Groupon filed its lawsuit on Monday with the federal court in its hometown of Chicago, two months after IBM accused Groupon of patent […]
]]>

(Reuters) – The online marketplace Groupon has sued IBM, accusing it of infringing a patent related to technology that helps businesses solicit customers based on the customers’ locations at a given moment.

Groupon filed its lawsuit on Monday with the federal court in its hometown of Chicago, two months after IBM accused Groupon of patent infringement in a separate lawsuit.

“IBM is trying to shed its status as a dial-up-era dinosaur” by infringing the rights of “current”technology companies such as Groupon, according to Groupon spokesman Bill Roberts.

Doug Shelton, an IBM spokesman, said: “This counter suit is totally without merit.” IBM’s full name is International Business Machines Corp.

The latest lawsuit concerns IBM’s WebSphere Commerce platform, which Groupon said lets merchants send messages to customers with GPS-enabled devices based on their real-time locations, and their use of social media including Facebook.

Groupon said the platform infringes a December 2010 patent, and that it deserves royalties based on the “billions of dollars” of revenue that Armonk, New York-based IBM has received through its infringement.

“IBM, a relic of once-great 20th Century technology firms, has now resorted to usurping the intellectual property of companies born this millennium,” Groupon said in its lawsuit.

On March 2, IBM accused Groupon in a federal lawsuit in Delaware of infringing four patents, including two related to Prodigy, a late-1980s forerunner to the Internet.

“Over the past three years, IBM has attempted to conclude a fair and reasonable patent license agreement with Groupon, and we are disappointed that Groupon is seeking to divert attention from its patent infringement by suing,” Shelton said.

The Chicago case is Groupon Inc v International Business Machines Corp, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 16-05064. The Delaware case is International Business Machines Corp v Groupon Inc, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, No. 16-00122.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Andrew Hay)

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2016/05/09/groupon-sues-ibm-over-location-based-patent/feed/01946662Groupon sues IBM over location-based patentKeyboard app maker SwiftKey sued by rival for patent infringementhttp://venturebeat.com/2014/07/15/keyboard-app-maker-swiftkey-sued-by-rival-for-patent-infringement/
http://venturebeat.com/2014/07/15/keyboard-app-maker-swiftkey-sued-by-rival-for-patent-infringement/#respondTue, 15 Jul 2014 19:27:22 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=1507491SwiftKey, which offers perhaps the most successful predictive text keyboard app for Android, is now being sued for patent infringement by another virtual keyboard company, WordLogic. The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington (Seattle). See the full text here. WorldLogic describes itself in the lawsuit as […]
]]>

SwiftKey, which offers perhaps the most successful predictive text keyboard app for Android, is now being sued for patent infringement by another virtual keyboard company, WordLogic.

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington (Seattle). See the full text here.

WorldLogic describes itself in the lawsuit as a “predictive text technology for computerized devices.” Predictive text technology predicts letters, words and short phrases when the user types in a letter or a few letters on a keyboard. Once an initial letter has been typed, the software predicts the next most probable letters, as well as other most likely word choices.

WordLogic says it’s been licensing and/or selling its predictive text technology since 2001, and that it owns many patents for the technology including some that are pending.

WordLogic believes that SwiftKey has violated its ‘984 Patent. The ‘984 Patent, WordLogic’s attorneys explain in the suit, is “directed to computer implemented method and system claims directed to predictive text where processing input key events associated with user input that are received, monitored, redirected. . .”

“SwiftKey has copied many functional aspects and design features of WLC’s predictive text technology,” the suit reads.

WordLogic claims it’s been in licensing negotiations with SwiftKey, but that negotiations broke down and SwiftKey has continued using technology covered by the ‘984 and other WordLogic patents.

SwiftKey decided to make its app free last month, after establishing itself as one of the few successful paid Android apps. The company tells VentureBeat it has seen monthly user engagement go up 54 percent since dropping its previous $4 price in mid-June.

SwiftKey says it has also seen more than 12 million downloads of its free and premium themes, which also launched when the app went free. The company isn’t yet offering any specific revenue or user numbers, but the strong theme downloads show that there’s a strong user interest in customizing their keyboards.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2014/07/15/keyboard-app-maker-swiftkey-sued-by-rival-for-patent-infringement/feed/01507491Keyboard app maker SwiftKey sued by rival for patent infringementApple-Samsung jury foreman: We all lost this onehttp://venturebeat.com/2014/05/05/apple-samsung-jury-foreman-we-all-lost-this-one/
http://venturebeat.com/2014/05/05/apple-samsung-jury-foreman-we-all-lost-this-one/#respondTue, 06 May 2014 01:15:55 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=1467630"Ultimately, the consumer is the loser in all this," the foreman of the jury that returned a mixed verdict in the Apple-Samsung patent trial said today.
]]>

Apple and Samsung are undoubtedly looking for a way to spin Friday’s mixed verdict as a victory. But the trial’s jury foreman says it wasn’t a case of picking a winner.

“It wasn’t a decision based on trying to send a message to one company or another,” Thomas Dunham, a retired IBM supervisor, told the San Jose Mercury News. “It was based on the evidence that was presented to us.”

But if there was no clear winner, Dunham said, there was a loser: you and me.

“Ultimately, the consumer is the loser in all this,” Dunham told the Mercury News. “I’d like to see them find a way to settle. I hope this (verdict) in some way helps shape that future.”

The jury had a chance to play with the phones in question in order to compare their interfaces and how they worked. They also heard testimony about a deal Google had made to help defend Samsung against Android-related lawsuits from Apple.

“That woke us all up,” Dunham said. But the Apple-Google war was beyond the scope of this trial — so that battle will have to wait for another day.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2014/05/05/apple-samsung-jury-foreman-we-all-lost-this-one/feed/01467630Apple-Samsung jury foreman: We all lost this oneApple wins, Samsung loses, lawyers win, you lose, Samsung device bans likely, blah, blah blahhttp://venturebeat.com/2013/11/18/apple-wins-samsung-loses-lawyers-win-you-lose-samsung-device-bans-likely-blah-blah-blah/
http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/18/apple-wins-samsung-loses-lawyers-win-you-lose-samsung-device-bans-likely-blah-blah-blah/#respondMon, 18 Nov 2013 18:40:51 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=861818Apple won a round in its seemingly never-ending legal battles with Samsung today, making it more likely that Apple will be able to deny Samsung the ability to import some of its smartphone models into the U.S. Which sounds scary, but is actually ultimately meaningless. A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, […]
]]>

Apple won a round in its seemingly never-ending legal battles with Samsung today, making it more likely that Apple will be able to deny Samsung the ability to import some of its smartphone models into the U.S.

While Justice Koh had denied Apple’s request for a total product ban, arguing that this would only be justified if Samsung’s infringing features were solely responsible for Samsung’s sales wins, the U.S. court of appeal said that Apple only needs to show that those features were partly responsible.

So, the court said: “We vacate the district court’s denial of Apple’s request for a permanent injunction with respect to its utility patents and remand for further proceedings.”

Note those last four words: remand for further proceedings. Yet more court cases will, inevitably, follow.

To give you a hint what a huge victory Apple scored today, the products it won the right to re-argue in yet another court case for a complete and total import ban on are the Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S Showcase, Fascinate, Mesmerize, Vibrant, and Galaxy S (i9000).

Which products are like, selling in the thousands today. On eBay. Used.

Yeah, you got it. Not the bestselling Galaxy S III, or the new flagship Galaxy S4. Instead, a bunch of minor models that Apple first tried to ban in late 2011 and into 2012. In other words, if today was a victory, it’s a Pyrrhic victory. Apple may have won, but it doesn’t matter in any real or actual or market-driven sense.

Above: The 6.3-inch Samsung Galaxy Mega

Image Credit: Samsung

Because, even though Apple can potentially use this mini-win as a lever in an upcoming court battle in which it will try to ban these products plus some of Samsung’s newer models that are actually selling in the millions in the U.S., due to the stunning speed of the U.S. court system — glaciers got nothing on these boys — any kind of victory will be likely put off until sometime in 2015, by which time Samsung will be on Galaxy S5 or S6 or S7, will have continued its journey to wean itself of product elements that can potentially be seen as infringing on Apple products, and will merrily continue selling its popular products in probably ever-increasing quantities.

But hey, Apple won.

Whoooo.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/18/apple-wins-samsung-loses-lawyers-win-you-lose-samsung-device-bans-likely-blah-blah-blah/feed/0861818Apple wins, Samsung loses, lawyers win, you lose, Samsung device bans likely, blah, blah blahApple accuses Samsung Galaxy S4 of patent infringement (with 21 other products)http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/14/apple-accuses-samsung-galaxy-s4-of-patent-infringement-with-21-other-products/
http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/14/apple-accuses-samsung-galaxy-s4-of-patent-infringement-with-21-other-products/#commentsTue, 14 May 2013 14:13:13 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=737229In other words, Apple's saying, Samsung can't have its cake and eat it to. Or, what's good for Pauline is good for Petra.
]]>As Apple gears up for yet another major patent infringement trial against Samsung, it has added the latest and greatest Galaxy smartphone to its list of 22 allegedly infringing Samsung products.

Samsung recently released its newest smartphone, the Galaxy S4, which began shipping in late April 2013. Based on Apple’s analysis of the Galaxy S4, Apple has concluded that it is an infringing device and accordingly intends to move for leave to add the Galaxy S4 as an infringing product.

In the increasingly complex world of Apple legal maneuvering, this case is both an offensive action against Samsung and defensive, as Samsung has filed a counterclaim. So both Apple and Samsung are plaintiffs and defendants at one and the same time.

This existing list of what Apple believes are infringing Samsung products is already at 22. Because the judge in the case has asked Apple to limit the number of products it is accusing, Apple has offered to drop one from this list in order to add the S4:

Admire

Captivate Glide

Conquer 4G

Dart

Exhibit 2 4G

Galaxy Nexus

Galaxy Note

Galaxy Note 10.1

Galaxy Note II

Galaxy Player 4.0

GalaxyPlayer 5.0

Galaxy Rugby Pro

Galaxy SII

Galaxy SII Epic 4G Touch

Galaxy SII Skyrocket

Galaxy S III

Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus

Galaxy Tab 8.9

Galaxy Tab 2 10.1

Illusion

Stratosphere

Transform Ultra

Samsung’s plan to limit the number of models accused, however, consists of a strategy of calling each product for each carrier a different model, Apple says in the filing. In other words, a Galaxy S4 would be one product when configured for AT&T, and a second when configured for Verizon.

Apple, naturally, disagrees with that strategy, saying that “during the parties’ recent discussions, Apple asked Samsung to identify any relevant differences between carriers and operating system versions that justified its proposed granular approach – Samsung refused.” In addition, Apple says, Samsung’s counterclaims on Apple products it accuses of patent infringement do not count the iPhone 5 on AT&T as different from the iPhone 5 on Verizon.

In other words, Apple’s saying, Samsung can’t have its cake and eat it too. Or, what’s good for Pauline is good for Petra. However, in fairness, Apple does have three models of the Galaxy S II on the list, as well as three models of the Galaxy Note, and three models of the Galaxy Tab (although these are different sizes).

In one final interesting note, several of the lawyers representing Apple are from San Francisco firm Morrison & Foerster, which chose its domain name from the first two letters of “Morrison” and “Foerster,” and only those two letters. Which, ironically, is a bit of an apt summary and probable preview of all the legal action so far.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/14/apple-accuses-samsung-galaxy-s4-of-patent-infringement-with-21-other-products/feed/2737229Apple accuses Samsung Galaxy S4 of patent infringement (with 21 other products)Apple wins Moto/Google court case over phone sensors, no iPhone ban at the borderhttp://venturebeat.com/2013/04/22/apple-wins-motogoogle-court-case-over-phone-sensors-no-iphone-ban-at-the-border/
http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/22/apple-wins-motogoogle-court-case-over-phone-sensors-no-iphone-ban-at-the-border/#commentsMon, 22 Apr 2013 21:51:04 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=720938Apple has won the lawsuit that Google division Motorola brought against it in summer 2012. The lawsuit, if successful, could have resulted in an import ban of iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touches.
]]>Apple has won the lawsuit that Google division Motorola brought against it in summer 2012. The lawsuit, if successful, could have resulted in an import ban of iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touches.

Motorola filed suit against Apple with the International Trade Commission in August of 2012, alleging that Apple infringed seven of its patents, including location reminders, e-mail notification, phone/video players, and Siri voice recognition. Google took ownership of the company in May of 2012, and Motorola’s stockpile of more than 17,000 patents was likely one of the key reasons the Android mobile operating system creator bought the company.

In a instant of shocking legal clarity, the judge in the Apple/Moto case said earlier this month that Apple and Google apparently had no interest in actually resolving this case, but were using the legal system and their various Android/iOS lawsuits as “a business strategy that appears to have no end.”

Interestingly, it’s been less than a month since Google issued a unilateral declaration of peace on certain patents that it has placed in a pool for use by software developers working on open source software. The patents that formed the basis of this complaint against Apple, naturally, did not make the cut.

This case may yet be appealed to United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/22/apple-wins-motogoogle-court-case-over-phone-sensors-no-iphone-ban-at-the-border/feed/1720938Apple wins Moto/Google court case over phone sensors, no iPhone ban at the borderApple and Samsung win some, lose some in final rulings of the billion-dollar patent infringement casehttp://venturebeat.com/2012/12/18/both-apple-and-samsung-win-some-lose-some-in-justice-kohs-rulings/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/18/both-apple-and-samsung-win-some-lose-some-in-justice-kohs-rulings/#commentsTue, 18 Dec 2012 08:13:41 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=592061Apple won't get a permanent and full ban on the import of 26 different Samsung smartphones and tablets. And Samsung won't get a new trial.
]]>Apple won’t get a permanent and full ban on the import of 26 different Samsung smartphones and tablets. And Samsung won’t get a new trial.

Historically, products found to be infringing have been banned from importation. But, as Koh’s ruling cites, that changed in 2006 when the Supreme Court ruled that the damaged party must show:

irreparable harm

that monetary damages are inadequate

that a full injunction would be equitable

and that the public interest would not be harmed

Koe agreed that Apple had suffered irreparable harm, but that the harm could not be tied specifically to the patented features that Samsung was found to have infringed, so “without a causal nexus, this Court cannot conclude that the irreparable harm supports entry of an injunction.”

In terms of monetary damages, Koh wrote that the “Court agrees that Apple has likely suffered, and will continue to suffer, the loss of some downstream sales,” but, probably noting the Apple-HTC licensing agreement, also noted that “Apple’s licensing activity suggests that Apple does not believe that these patents are priceless.” And given that 23 of the 26 Samsung products mentioned in the injunction are no longer sold by Samsung, Koh did not feel that an injunction or lack thereof harmed either company in any major way.

The kicker seems to be the hard to public interest. As Koh writes:

It would not be equitable to deprive consumers of Samsung’s infringing phones when, as explained above, only limited features of the phones have been found to infringe any of Apple’s intellectual property. Though the phones do contain infringing features, they contain a far greater number of non-infringing features to which consumers would no longer have access if this Court were to issue an injunction. The public interest does not support removing phones from the market when the infringing components constitute such limited parts of complex, multi-featured products.

In the end, Justice Koh ruled that Apple’s lost sales could not be specifically tied to the exact features that Samsung infringed, and therefore an injunction was not warranted.

On the other side of the coin, Samsung had argued that a mistrial should be declared and a new trial ordered because one juror, the foreman, was involved in a lawsuit with Seagate, the hard drive company, 19 years before, and that because Samsung holds a nine percent ownership interest in Seagate, he would be biased against Samsung.

In addition, she stated, “it is not even clear that Mr. Hogan knew of any relationship between Seagate and Samsung,” and that if Samsung believed that its relationship with Seagate was close enough that bias against Seagate would equate to bias against Samsung, Samsung’s lawyers should have questioned the juror.

That means, presumably, that Samsung must pay the billion-dollar fine, but Apple will not be able to ban any Samsung products from importation in the the U.S.

“I think it’s time for global peace,” Judge Koh told Apple and Samsung’s lawyers at yesterday’s hearing, according to the AP. Specifically, she’s referring to a calming of the patent wars prevalent in the technology world over the past decade, and which the Apple v. Samsung case is a poster child.

While one analyst predicted that Apple would be the overall winner in yesterday’s hearing, it appears that Judge Koh isn’t leaning towards either company. Samsung is aiming to cut its massive fines in the trial and is calling for a new trial, while Apple is pushing to increase the fines and potentially ban the sales of certain Samsung phones. Koh didn’t seem to favor either of those outcomes.

Samsung’s $1.05 billion fee may end up being reduced as Judge Koh looks at the line items of the jury’s damage calculation. For example, the jurors noted Samsung owed Apple almost $58 million for using Apple’s “tap and zoom” feature in the Samsung Prevail smartphone, but Koh noted that figure was too high. Instead, Apple could end up collecting $8 million over that infringement.

This latest round of hearings won’t be the end of the Apple v. Samsung trial. It’s expected to hit the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., and it could potentially reach the Supreme Court, according to the AP.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/07/apple-v-samsung-lucy-koh-peace/feed/0586080Apple v. Samsung judge calls for ‘global peace’ in patent warsSamsung to judge: We want to see the HTC dealhttp://venturebeat.com/2012/11/16/samsung-to-judge-we-want-to-see-the-htc-deal/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/16/samsung-to-judge-we-want-to-see-the-htc-deal/#respondFri, 16 Nov 2012 22:33:45 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=576064Samsung is planning to ask a court which is considering Apple's request for a sales ban of Samsung's Android smartphones and tablets to force Apple to reveal the deal it recently reached with HTC.
]]>Samsung is planning to ask a court that’s considering Apple’s request for a sales ban of Samsung’s Android smartphones and tablets to force Apple to reveal the deal it recently reached with HTC, according to a Reuters report.

Although terms of that deal have not been released, analysts believe that HTC is paying Apple between $6 and $8 per Android phone in exchange for Apple licensing its iPhone and iPad patents. At that rate, Apple stands to collect between $160 million to $200 million each year, based on HTC’s current shipping volumes.

This, however, is a sign that perhaps Samsung does have some interest in negotiating — but with its eyes open, knowing what HTC is already paying. Or it is simply a tactic to avoid a sales ban in the U.S., since courts are generally reluctant to solve infringement issues with a complete ban when a licensing agreement is at least in theory possible.

My guess is that much of the tech world is now hoping that Samsung is successful in its attempt, as the HTC agreement would reveal precisely how much Apple values its patents and doubtless other interesting and until-now private information about Apple, its business dealings, and its licensing strategy.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/16/samsung-to-judge-we-want-to-see-the-htc-deal/feed/0576064Samsung to judge: We want to see the HTC dealNow Google is the patent bad boy? FTC staff want to sue Android makerhttp://venturebeat.com/2012/11/01/now-google-is-the-patent-bad-boy-itc-staff-want-to-sue-android-maker/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/01/now-google-is-the-patent-bad-boy-itc-staff-want-to-sue-android-maker/#respondFri, 02 Nov 2012 00:20:01 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=567951International Trade Commission staff are recommending the agency file a lawsuit against Google because of its efforts to block U.S. imports of iPhones and Windows Phones.
]]>Federal Trade Commission staff are recommending the agency file a lawsuit against Google because of its efforts to block U.S. imports of iPhones and Windows Phones, according to Bloomberg.

Google subsidiary Motorola has been involved in two lawsuits against Apple at the ITC — International Trade Commission — over the past year, seeking import bans on competitors’ phones.

In the first, the ITC cleared Apple of infringement on three claims but found that one of Motorola’s patents related to a “sensor-controlled user interface” was possibly infringing. The second case alleged infringement of seven patents, including location reminders, email notifications, phone/video players, and Siri voice recognition.

Motorola had been asking for royalties of 2.25 percent on retail pricing, which would put almost $15 in Google’s pocket every time Apple sells an entry-level $649 iPhone 5.

Standard practice in the wireless industry, however, is to license essential patents at much lower cost, often referred to as FRAND: fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. The goal is that no one player can dominate the industry with exorbitant demands over a single patent.

Seen in the light of today’s decision, it now seems possible that Google caught a hint of the FTC staff’s concerns and decided to get out of Dodge before getting into further trouble.

The threatened lawsuit, however, is just a recommendation from FTC staff and would need to be acted upon by federally-appointed FTC commissioners. That seems an unlikely option given that Google has withdrawn the complaint.

But it does give Apple plenty of ammo in its crusade to pay as little as possible to the creators of its greatest rival, the Android mobile operating system.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/01/now-google-is-the-patent-bad-boy-itc-staff-want-to-sue-android-maker/feed/0567951Now Google is the patent bad boy? FTC staff want to sue Android makerBizzaro world: Apple, Samsung reverse two sales bans on one day in two countrieshttp://venturebeat.com/2012/10/11/bizzaro-world-apple-samsung-reverse-two-sales-bans-on-one-day-in-two-countries/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/11/bizzaro-world-apple-samsung-reverse-two-sales-bans-on-one-day-in-two-countries/#respondThu, 11 Oct 2012 16:35:54 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=552173Today, Samsung won a reversal of the sales ban on the Galaxy Nexus phone imposed after Apple's August court win. Also today, Apple won at least a stay of execution on the iPhone and iPad sales ban imposed after Samsung's August legal victory.
]]>Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

Today, Samsung won a reversal of the sales ban on the Galaxy Nexus phone imposed after Apple’s August court win. Also today, Apple won at least a stay of execution on the iPhone and iPad sales ban imposed after Samsung’s August legal victory.

The first case is in the U.S.; the second is in Korea.

It’s getting hard to tell these patent infringement cases apart. By some counts, which may not be completely comprehensive, 19 lawsuits were ongoing between Apple and Samsung in nine different countries on four continents — last year. This year, with appeals, refilings, and potential new frontiers in different countries, the count may go even higher.

But at least we have patent peace in Antarctica.

Above: Google hasn’t been selling the Nexus for a few months now …

The Samsung Nexus ban stemmed from Apple’s billion-dollar win in August in which a jury found that Samsung willfully infringed on the Cupertino, Calif., company’s patents. But as Reuters reported, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the California court had “abused its discretion in entering an injunction.”

I suppose that means Google will be selling the Nexus again at some point.

The iPhone/iPad sales ban stemmed from Samsung’s whopping $35,000 win in a Korean court that ruled Apple had infringed two of the Korean company’s patents, while Samsung had violated one of Apple’s. The bigger punch in that court decision, of course, was the threatened import ban, which Apple has now, at least, delayed.

Interestingly, the Korean court had also banned Samsung’s Nexus and Galaxy Tab tablets in a probably healthy “pox on both houses” attitude that could stand a visit to courthouses Stateside.

Both bans, and both reversals, will almost certainly face tests in further legal battles. Samsung will likely appeal its billion-dollar loss, and Apple must respond to the Korean ban, which has just been stayed, not lifted.

The soap opera continues. …

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/11/bizzaro-world-apple-samsung-reverse-two-sales-bans-on-one-day-in-two-countries/feed/0552173Bizzaro world: Apple, Samsung reverse two sales bans on one day in two countriesGoogle/Motorola unilaterally drop ITC patent infringement case against Applehttp://venturebeat.com/2012/10/02/googlemotorola-unilaterally-drop-itc-patent-infringement-case-against-apple/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/02/googlemotorola-unilaterally-drop-itc-patent-infringement-case-against-apple/#respondTue, 02 Oct 2012 21:28:28 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=543838Four-star U.S. general Oliver P. Smith is credited with the statement: "We're not retreating, we're just advancing in a different direction." He must have worked for Google in a different universe.
]]>Four-star U.S. general Oliver P. Smith is credited with the statement: “We’re not retreating, we’re just advancing in a different direction.” He must have worked for Google in a different universe.

Google subsidiary Motorola has terminated its International Trade Commission complaint against Apple. That complaint was aimed at an import ban on basically all Apple devices due to alleged infringement of no fewer than seven patents, covering location reminders, media players, alerts and notifications, and yes, Siri-style voice recognition.

Now, however, Motorola has unilaterally and mysteriously withdrawn the complaint.

I checked with Google for an explanation, and received one almost immediately. What the response had in terms of speed, however, it lacked in detail. Google is stating only the following:

“As we have said many times before, we will continue to vigorously defend our partners.”

Above: Googler with pink employee (no, not really)

Beyond that, everything is guesswork. Could this mean that there is some kind of deal being done between Google, Apple, and the major Android manufacturers that might lead to a lasting patent peace in mobile electronics?

Well, pink unicorns would be nice too.

That may be too much to ask for. But Google’s clearly saying here that it is “vigorously” defending Android licensees. If it’s not doing that in the ITC, it must be either doing that at the local court level … or, dare we hope, at the negotiation table.

There is one other option, of course.

The last time Apple, Android, and the ITC hooked up, HTC was the Google proxy victim, and the result was not pretty for the only significant non-iOS smartphone platform. HTC lost, and the trade commission judge found that its phones infringed two key Apple patents.

ITC battles are dangerous because they could lead to import bans and nearly immediate massive revenue losses. And Google/Motorola could be trying to avoid a tit-for-tat ITC action from Apple.

But despite the damage, HTC does have ground to stand on. While Samsung copied seemingly every move from the Apple playbook, HTC has been a bit more sensible and hasn’t shown any of the overt patent infringement that’s been commonplace with Samsung. So Cher’s thinking is likely this: Why settle when we actually have a case to defend ourselves?

We reached out to HTC on the matter, and, predictably, it had little to say: “HTC has no comment at this time,” said a company spokesperson.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/29/unphased-by-samsung-loss-htc-wont-back-down-in-apple-patent-fight/feed/1521689Unfazed by Samsung loss, HTC won’t back down in Apple patent fightApple-Samsung battle means it’s Google’s move nowhttp://venturebeat.com/2012/08/27/google-apple-samsung-verdict/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/27/google-apple-samsung-verdict/#respondMon, 27 Aug 2012 22:40:43 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=520043Apple and Samsung have shared their moment in the spotlight, but now that the epic patent infringement battle between the two has come to an end, it's time to watch how Google will react.
]]>

It’s time for Samsung to retreat after an epic loss to Apple’s prosecutors. It will make way for an even bigger opponent, one who might actually give the iPhone maker a run for its billions: Google.

Last week, Samsung lost an epic patent battle with Apple and is now facing the prospect of paying over $1 billion in damages, along with having to pull eight of its devices from the U.S. market completely. (Appeals could change either outcome, of course, and mean that the battle won’t truly be finished for some time yet.)

Still, Samsung won’t be Apple’s biggest challenge. That role belongs to Google. It’s as if Apple has collected a big pile of gold coins but now must face Bowser.

“Android is about 60 percent of the market. Its biggest user was Samsung,” said intellectual property lawyer Bill C. Panagos of Butzel Long, in an interview with VentureBeat. “If injunctions come out that force the removal of all Samsung products … then I think you’ll see that Google will be associated — by consumers — with being the supplier to products that may not last in the market.”

In other words, Samsung’s loss might hurt Android’s reputation.

In a reaction to the verdict, Google released a statement saying the majority of the claims brought against Samsung are not directly related to the “core” of its Android operating system. Instead, the claims reference a skin, or modification, that Samsung used to compete with Apple.

The Apple patents included the bounce-back patent and operating-system technology that makes a rubber band-like motion when the users has scrolled to the bottom of a list. It also included a number of trade dress issues, nonfunctional design elements that brand a device.

Panagos believes that biggest winner here might not be Apple at all. It could instead by Microsoft, who has been waiting in the smartphone shadows of iOS and Android.

“If Samsung loses [an appeal] and if the market perceives [Android] to be associated with products that won’t be around, then you’ll see Microsoft come out of its third or fourth place…and actually become a real player,” he said.

Should Google lose favor with consumers, Microsoft has an opportunity to come in and push its mobile operating system to third-party manufacturers in the same way Google does, touting itself as a more reliable brand. It also puts the onus on Microsoft to make sure it pays for the license on anything externally created in its operating system.

In order to avoid ultimate defeat, Panagos suggests Google release the next version of its Android OS immediately, with “new and exciting” features that will keep Android uses entertained and loyal.

In terms of Google launching its own lawsuits against Apple, Panagos says we’re entering “mutual assured destruction.” In other words, there are thousands of patents out there. If one company sues, the other can turn around and sue it right back — until they realize it’s an endless battle, or until the world is reduced to a smoking wasteland, populated only by zombies and hungry-eyed patent lawyers.

This is true even for Samsung, he says. “It’s not over yet. They still have a bite at the Apple.”

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/27/google-apple-samsung-verdict/feed/0520043Apple-Samsung battle means it’s Google’s move nowMotorola-Google’s first patent suit against Apple seeks import ban of all major Apple deviceshttp://venturebeat.com/2012/08/19/motorola-googles-first-patent-suit-against-apple-seeks-import-ban-of-all-major-apple-devices/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/19/motorola-googles-first-patent-suit-against-apple-seeks-import-ban-of-all-major-apple-devices/#respondSun, 19 Aug 2012 18:41:42 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=514034Motorola, the phone company Google acquired this year, filed a patent infringement suit against Apple that effectively seeks to ban the import of the iPhone, the iPad and the iPod Touch to the U.S. The paperwork was filed by Motorola with the International Trade Commission on Friday, but won’t be available for public viewing until […]
]]>Motorola, the phone company Google acquired this year, filed a patent infringement suit against Apple that effectively seeks to ban the import of the iPhone, the iPad and the iPod Touch to the U.S.

The paperwork was filed by Motorola with the International Trade Commission on Friday, but won’t be available for public viewing until it’s posted online tomorrow (Monday). The suit cites infringement of seven patents, including location reminders, e-mail notification, phone/video players, and even Siri voice recognition, according to Motorola.

While Motorola has in the past sued Apple for patent infringement, this is the first one filed since Google officially took ownership of Motorola in May.

It’s just the latest in a widening war of patent suits, and signals that Google is ready to get tough with its new patent portfolio in Motorola. Google could be trying to change the momentum in a battle that until now made Google’s Android look more vulnerable than Apple’s iOS platform. That’s because Google’s Android system was so young, it had little patent defense against other players. Indeed, Motorola’s 17,000 patents was the big reason Google chose to buy Motorola in the first place. Foss Patents has a good overview of Google’s strategic reasons for this.

Notably, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that none of the patents asserted by Motorola in this newest claim is a “standards-essential” patent, which could help Motorola’s case for the ban, if the court finds that infringement did happen. Patents considered standards-essential are ones that courts consider so basically necessary for a given industry that patent-holding companies are required to license them at a fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory prices. However, if patents are not standards-essential, courts don’t require holding companies to license them.

However, from Motorola’s statement, it doesn’t appear that Motorola is refusing to license per se: “We would like to settle these patent matters, but Apple’s unwillingness to work out a license leaves us little choice but to defend ourselves and our engineers’ innovations,” Motorola Mobility said in an e-mailed statement to Bloomberg.

In a previous case with Motorola, Apple has argued that Motorola’s licensing fee demands are unreasonable. In that case, the ITC ruled that Apple had infringed on one of the four patents asserted by Motorola. In that case, the ITC will make a final decision next week.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/19/motorola-googles-first-patent-suit-against-apple-seeks-import-ban-of-all-major-apple-devices/feed/0514034Motorola-Google’s first patent suit against Apple seeks import ban of all major Apple devicesNintendo wins Wii patent lawsuithttp://venturebeat.com/2012/08/01/nintendo-wins-wii-patent-lawsuit/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/01/nintendo-wins-wii-patent-lawsuit/#commentsWed, 01 Aug 2012 21:06:03 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=501438Nintendo won a patent-infringement lawsuit involving the Wii today when a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit in the game company’s favor. U.S. District Court Judge David Cercone in Pittsburgh granted a summary judgment in Nintendo’s favor and ruled that there was no need for a jury trial. Copper Innovations Group had sued Nintendo, alleging that […]
]]>Nintendo won a patent-infringement lawsuit involving the Wii today when a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit in the game company’s favor.

U.S. District Court Judge David Cercone in Pittsburgh granted a summary judgment in Nintendo’s favor and ruled that there was no need for a jury trial. Copper Innovations Group had sued Nintendo, alleging that the Wii console and its controllers infringed on one of its patents, U.S. patent No. 5,640,152.

“We are very pleased with the court’s decision,” said Richard Medway, Nintendo of America’s deputy general counsel. “Nintendo has a long history of developing innovative products while respecting the intellectual property rights of others. We also vigorously defend patent lawsuits when we firmly believe that we have not infringed another party’s patent, despite the risks that this policy entails.”

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/01/nintendo-wins-wii-patent-lawsuit/feed/1501438Nintendo wins Wii patent lawsuitYahoo and Facebook settle patent lawsuit, establish deeper ad dealhttp://venturebeat.com/2012/07/06/yahoo-facebook-settlement-ads/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/06/yahoo-facebook-settlement-ads/#respondFri, 06 Jul 2012 23:06:21 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=485635The patent war between Yahoo and Facebook is over. The two companies not only settled the suit but extended the multiyear partnership between the two, including new deals for advertising. The conflict began in March when Yahoo accused the social network of infringing on 10 of its patents. These included patents concerning displaying content, messaging […]
]]>

The patent war between Yahoo and Facebook is over. The two companies not only settled the suit but extended the multiyear partnership between the two, including new deals for advertising.

The conflict began in March when Yahoo accused the social network of infringing on 10 of its patents. These included patents concerning displaying content, messaging users, controlling spam, and other topics. Facebook then returned with a countersuit Yahoo was actually infringing on 10 of Facebook’s patents. And Facebook went to the trouble of naming each offending Yahoo product, such as Yahoo’s home page, Flickr, and Yahoo Finance.

In June, Yahoo’s counsel requested an extension to respond to Facebook’s claims, saying that the extra days would help Yahoo and Facebook come to a settlement.

According to All Things D, today’s settlement includes a new advertising agreement, which will allow Yahoo to pull Facebook’s “like” data and display it on ads on Yahoo. Yahoo interim chief executive Ross Levinsohn and Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg facilitated the deal. Both companies have also agreed to license some of the offending technology to each other. Facebook explained in a press release that it will help Yahoo with “large media event coverage” by integrating it on the social network.

The two companies have been involved for a long time now, with a “multiyear contract” that allowed Yahoo to use Facebook as a way to distribute content from its site. Yahoo then supported Facebook’s “Social Bar” on its sites, which Facebook says 90 million people have used.

The lawsuit, which began under Yahoo’s former chief executive Scott Thompson, looked like a last-ditch effort on Yahoo’s part to get money. The company has had a number of pitfalls as it tries to stay afloat in a new media industry. The company recently began laying off 2,000 employees and had plans to restructure. But Thompson who was behind many of these plans, was ousted as CEO in May after he was found lying about a computer science degree on his resume.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/06/yahoo-facebook-settlement-ads/feed/0485635Yahoo and Facebook settle patent lawsuit, establish deeper ad dealSorry, Samsung: Judge turns down appeal on Galaxy Nexus banhttp://venturebeat.com/2012/07/03/samsung-apple-galaxy-nexus/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/03/samsung-apple-galaxy-nexus/#commentsWed, 04 Jul 2012 00:41:43 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=484399More bad news for Samsung. The company asked courts to delay a ban on sales of its Galaxy Nexus phone, but it was denied the extra time today. According to All Things D, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh, who recently approved Apple’s request for an injunction against the smartphone, refused the delay and will […]
]]>

More bad news for Samsung. The company asked courts to delay a ban on sales of its Galaxy Nexus phone, but it was denied the extra time today.

According to All Things D, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh, who recently approved Apple’s request for an injunction against the smartphone, refused the delay and will instead wait for Apple to post a $95.6 million bond. The bond acts as a safety net for Samsung, should the courts rule in its favor, and will cover any losses sustained from being unable to sell the Galaxy Nexus.

Samsung made the appeal on Sunday after the ruling was issued, saying the judge had “legally insufficient evidence” that Apple would face its own losses should the sale of the Galaxy Nexus continue throughout the trial. Apple says that Samsung is infringing on its patents in the Galaxy Nexus and has already won an injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1, which Apple says is too similar to the iPad. In that case, Apple forked over a $2.6 million bond to cover the injunction.

“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” Apple said in a statement at the time. “This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we’ve said many times before, we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

All Things D notes that Samsung and Google are said to have a software update in the works, which will take care of the infringing aspect of the Galaxy Nexus. All this in the hopes of getting the Nexus back on retailers’ shelves.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/03/samsung-apple-galaxy-nexus/feed/1484399Sorry, Samsung: Judge turns down appeal on Galaxy Nexus banApple fights to keep Samsung Galaxy S III off U.S. shelveshttp://venturebeat.com/2012/06/07/apple-samsung-patent-battle-galaxy-s-iii/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/07/apple-samsung-patent-battle-galaxy-s-iii/#respondThu, 07 Jun 2012 14:27:46 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=469938The much-anticipated Samsung Galaxy S III phone will soon be available from five carriers in the U.S. But if Apple has its way, that could abruptly change. Apple has filed a motion in a California court that claims the Samsung Galaxy S III smartphone violates two of its patents and that it wants the device […]
]]>

Apple has filed a motion in a California court that claims the Samsung Galaxy S III smartphone violates two of its patents and that it wants the device blocked from sale in the United States. The action was first spotted by analyst Florian Mueller at FOSS Patents.

Specifically, Apple has asked for the court to add the S III as another device targeted by Apple’s preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smartphone. Apple claims Samsung is violating U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 and No. 5,946,647. The former cover “unified search,” while the latter covers “links for structures.”

Samsung has responded to Apple’s request by saying it would fight tooth-and-nail to make sure Apple does not succeed. The South Korean electronics giant will go forward with the Galaxy S III’s June 21 launch date.

“Samsung believes Apple’s request is without merit. We will vigorously oppose the request and demonstrate to the court that the Galaxy S III is innovative and distinctive,” a Samsung spokesperson said in a circulated statement to press. “We would also like to assure consumers that the U.S. launch and sales of the Galaxy S III will proceed as planned.”

Galaxy S III photo: Sean Ludwig/VentureBeat

Design is determining the winners in everything mobile. The most successful players are focusing on one thing: How to make products, services, and devices as compelling and delightful as possible – visually, and experientially. MobileBeat 2012, July 10-11 in San Francisco , is assembling the most elite minds to debate how UI/UX is transforming every aspect of the mobile economy, and where the opportunities lie. Register here.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/07/apple-samsung-patent-battle-galaxy-s-iii/feed/0469938Apple fights to keep Samsung Galaxy S III off U.S. shelvesWith Thompson out of the way, Yahoo and Facebook close to resolving patent disputeshttp://venturebeat.com/2012/06/03/yahoo-facebook-patent-fight/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/03/yahoo-facebook-patent-fight/#respondSun, 03 Jun 2012 22:05:58 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=465445Yahoo and Facebook are making progress in an attempt to resolve patent legal disputes, according to an AllThingsD report that cites sources familiar with the matter. The battle between the two companies started back in March when Yahoo accused Facebook of infringing on 10 specific patents — many of which dealt with social communication functionality […]
]]>

Yahoo and Facebook are making progress in an attempt to resolve patent legal disputes, according to an AllThingsD report that cites sources familiar with the matter.

The battle between the two companies started back in March when Yahoo accused Facebook of infringing on 10 specific patents — many of which dealt with social communication functionality that’s crucial to Facebook. The suit — allegedly being driven by former Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson — came at a very unfortunate time for Facebook, which was preparing to make its public debut.

With Thompson no longer at Yahoo, it seems that the executive team was far more willing to settle those patent disputes with Facebook. Terms of the settlement deal may contain cross-licensing patent agreements between the companies and deeper integration between Yahoo and Facebook products, according to the AllThingsD report.

We’re reaching out to both companies, and will update the post with any new info.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/03/yahoo-facebook-patent-fight/feed/0465445With Thompson out of the way, Yahoo and Facebook close to resolving patent disputesGoogle’s EU complaint about Microsoft & Nokia is patent troll-baiting at its finesthttp://venturebeat.com/2012/06/01/google-nokia-microsoft-patent-trolling/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/01/google-nokia-microsoft-patent-trolling/#respondFri, 01 Jun 2012 17:15:28 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=464351Winning an argument against a “troll” is pretty much impossible within the confines of news article comment sections and social networks. However, when it comes to “patent trolls,” the situation can be quite different. Yesterday, Google filed a formal complaint with the European Commission that accused Nokia and Microsoft of teaming up to increase smartphone […]
]]>

Winning an argument against a “troll” is pretty much impossible within the confines of news article comment sections and social networks. However, when it comes to “patent trolls,” the situation can be quite different.

Yesterday, Google filed a formal complaint with the European Commission that accused Nokia and Microsoft of teaming up to increase smartphone device prices through the use of patent infringement legal disputes, reports the Wall Street Journal. Basically, the more Nokia and Microsoft can prove their patents are being infringed upon, the more money the two companies will make by competitors who submit blindly to licensing fees to avoid costly legal battles.

Google’s mobile operating system Android presents plenty of opportunities for companies like Nokia and Microsoft to cry “patent infringement.” And since Android represents a crucial piece of Google’s overall future business strategy, this is certainly a problem. Device manufacturers that use Android on their smartphones may have to pay fees to both Microsoft and Google — making Android much less attractive an option compared to, say, Windows Phone.

The reason Google filed the complaint had to do with Microsoft and Nokia funneling 1,200 patents into the care of intellectual property firm MOSAID. It’s worth explaining that the primary goal of every business is to make money, and MOSAID only makes money when legal battles spark up over patents it represents. This gives the IP firm an incentive to find companies that are potentially infringing on patents. A more crude description for this practice would be “patent trolling.”

What’s maddening about this practice is that it’s more or less acceptable, mostly because it’s rarely challenged on a large-scale basis.

So, Google’s best plan of attack is to stir up some attention to the issue of patent trolling and hope governing bodies like the European Commission hears them out. Google’s complaint also serves as sort of “troll bait” for Nokia and Microsoft, because if the companies respond, it draws more attention to the matter.

More attention to patent trolling means governing bodies are more likely to look at it critically. Got it?

Well, Nokia took the bait, responding to Google’s European Commission complaint with the following statement obtained by The Verge:

Though we have not yet seen the complaint, Google’s suggestion that Nokia and Microsoft are colluding on intellectual property rights is wrong. Both companies have their own intellectual property portfolios and strategies and operate independently.

Nokia has made regular patent divestments over the last five years. In each case, any commitments made for standards essential patents transfer to the acquirer and existing licenses for the patents continue. Had Google asked us, we would have been happy to confirm this, which could then have avoided them wasting the commission’s time and resources on such a frivolous complaint.

We agree with Google that Android devices have significant IP infringement issues, and would welcome constructive efforts to stop unauthorised use of Nokia intellectual property. Nokia has an active licensing program with more than 40 licensees. Companies who are not yet licensed under our standard essential patents should simply approach us and sign up for a license.

Nokia would like the public to believe that it’s far more concerned with “wasting the commission’s time and resources” than it is with Google’s accusations. But as I just explained, the mere fact that Nokia is responding means Google’s strategy is working. That doesn’t mean Google will necessarily win the favor of the European Commission, but it’s a good start.

Meanwhile, Google is also fighting accusations from Microsoft that its search engine is a monopoly that hinders competition from others (like Microsoft’s Bing). However, the EU’s antitrust chief seems more than willing to work with Google on the matter rather than take it to court.

I wonder if the same will be true with Nokia and Microsoft when it comes to their treatment of patents.

A judge has harshly penalized Samsung today, barring the company from using specific code in its defense against Apple’s infringement case.

Judge Paul S. Grewal, who has had recent issues with Samsung violating court orders, ordered Samsung to delivers bits of its source code to Apple in December, which Samsung instead decided to put off. Apple issued a complaint to the court, saying it wouldn’t be able to use the code now, and that Samsung was unnecessarily taking its time. Grewel released this order Friday, in response to Apple’s motion:

“In accordance with the foregoing, the court grants Apple’s Motion for Snactions, and finds that Samsung’s faiure to adequately produce source code to Apple violated the court’s December 22 Order. Samsung shall be precluded from offering any evidence of its design-around efforts for the ‘381, ‘891, and ‘163 patents, and shall not argue that the design-arounds are in any way distinct from those versions of code produced in accordance with the court’s order. Samsung must instead rely solely on the version of code that were produced on or before December 31, 2011.”

The mentioned code included Samsung’s “design-around,” or change in code so as to not infringe on patents, called a “blue glow.” Blue glow was an effort to move away from Apple’s “over-scrolling rubber band effect” patent that the iOS creator says Samsung was willfully infringing upon. Apple users will recognize this “over-scrolling” as the bouncing of a page when you’ve pulled on it too far with the swipe of a finger.

This “blue glow” code could have corrected Samsung’s alleged patent infringement and would have helped Samsung defend itself saying the code had been altered and the infringement no longer existed. But now Samsung will have to rely on code dating earlier than December 31, 2011, when the “design-around” had not yet been released.

The issues for Samsung are greater, however. According to Foss Patents, the court now sees Samsung as a continued violator of discovery orders and will more than likely be harsher on the company in future trials. And looking back on Samsung’s history with patent disputes, there will certainly be more trials.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/06/samsung-apple-sanction/feed/0426747Judge won’t allow Samsung to defend itself fully in Apple infringement trialYahoo points finger at Facebook, claims new patents are “tainted”http://venturebeat.com/2012/04/27/yahoo-counter-counterclaims/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/04/27/yahoo-counter-counterclaims/#respondFri, 27 Apr 2012 23:00:07 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=422700Today, social networking giant Facebook found itself once again on the defensive. Litigious cross-town rival Yahoo has filed new claims against the soon-to-IPO company, asserting that Facebook’s patents are “tainted.” “Today Yahoo! filed additional claims against Facebook in U.S. District Court in San Jose related to two additional patents on which Facebook infringes,” the company […]
]]>

Today, social networking giant Facebook found itself once again on the defensive. Litigious cross-town rival Yahoo has filed new claims against the soon-to-IPO company, asserting that Facebook’s patents are “tainted.”

“Today Yahoo! filed additional claims against Facebook in U.S. District Court in San Jose related to two additional patents on which Facebook infringes,” the company said in a statement emailed to VentureBeat. “Today’s filing underscores the breadth of Facebook’s violation of Yahoo!’s intellectual property. As we have stated previously, Yahoo!’s technologies are the foundation of our business that engages over 700 million monthly unique visitors and represent the spirit of innovation upon which Yahoo! is built. We intend to vigorously protect these technologies for our customers and shareholders.”

In the counter to Facebook’s counter, Yahoo asserts that Facebook’s patent claims are invalid, denies any acts of wrongdoing as set forth in the social network’s counterclaim. Yahoo also added two new claims of patent infringement to its suit.

The legal drama, as you surely know, all started when Yahoo filed suit against Facebook for 10 claims of patent infringement. Facebook fired back with its own counterclaims, all the while shopping around town to shore up its patent portfolio. Now, Yahoo is taking issue with how Facebook came about its newly acquired patents and is using the origin of those patents as an affirmative defense against Facebook’s claims of infringement.

“[Facebook’s patents] are invalid, unenforceable, and/or void due to the failure to meet the requirements of the Unites States patent laws,” the media company’s legal counsel said in the new suit, which has the long-winded (and awesomely convoluted) title, “Plaintiff Yahoo! Inc.’s reply and counter counterclaims to defendant Facebook, Inc.’s answer; counterclaim against Facebook, Inc for declaratory judgment of non-infringement.”

“On information and belief, many, if not all, of these patents were acquired by Facebook for purposes of retaliation against Yahoo! in this case,” Yahoo also stated in the court document. “Facebook purchased and asserted patents tainted by inequitable conduct.”

Facebook, for its part, is non-plussed by Friday’s developments. “We remain perplexed by Yahoo’s erratic actions,” a Facebook spokesperson told VentureBeat. “We disagree with these latest claims and we will continue to defend ourselves vigorously.”

We’ve embedded the full claim below for your perusal, but if you’d rather skip the legalese, here’s what Yahoo is asking for: that the court throws out Facebook’s counterclaims, finds Facebook to be infringing on Yahoo’s patents, and awards damages to Yahoo.

“This is an escalation to Facebook’s escalation. Nothing more, nothing less,” Moor Insights and Strategy president and principal analyst Patrick Moorhead told VentureBeat. “Yahoo’s lawyers see an exploit or weakness in the counterclaim and are throwing another log onto the legal fire. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Facebook retaliate with something in the next week.”

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/04/27/yahoo-counter-counterclaims/feed/0422700Yahoo points finger at Facebook, claims new patents are “tainted”Flickr fingered in Facebook counterclaimhttp://venturebeat.com/2012/04/03/flickr-facebook-suit/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/04/03/flickr-facebook-suit/#respondTue, 03 Apr 2012 19:34:26 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=411832 Yahoo’s popular photo-sharing community Flickr has been called out as one of the primary properties infringing on Facebook patents in the social network’s counterclaim, which it filed Tuesday. Facebook responded to a March patent suit brought against it by one-time-Valley-friend Yahoo with a counterclaim alleging violation of 10 patents. The social network claims that […]
]]>

Yahoo’s popular photo-sharing community Flickr has been called out as one of the primary properties infringing on Facebook patents in the social network’s counterclaim, which it filed Tuesday.

Facebook responded to a March patent suit brought against it by one-time-Valley-friend Yahoo with a counterclaim alleging violation of 10 patents. The social network claims that Yahoo’s homepage and content optimization engine infringe on Facebook patents. Yahoo News, Sports, Games, Finance, Autos, Movies, Shopping, and Travel properties also infringe on Facebook patents in the way they serve advertisements to visitors, Facebook argues.

Flickr, however, was given the star treatment, and fingered in particular for its violation of two patents (embedded below) around feed personalization and content tagging.

Patent 7,827,208, or the ‘208 patent as its referred to in the suit, is the “Generating a Feed of Stories Personalized for Members of a Social Network.” Facebook argues that the Flickr Photostream, Recent Activity, and Groups Activity features all infringe on this particular patent.

On the tagging front, Facebook owns the patent for Tagging Digital Media (patent 7,945,653) and claims that Flickr’s People in Photos, a tagging feature similar to Facebook’s offering, infringes on its intellectual property.

In all instances, Facebook calls for a cease and desist verdict.

“Facebook has been irreparably harmed by Yahoo!’s infringement, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and such harm will continue unless Yahoo! is enjoined by this Court,” the social network said in the suit.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/04/03/flickr-facebook-suit/feed/0411832Flickr fingered in Facebook counterclaimFacebook updates investors on Yahoo and Ceglia suits in amended S-1http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/27/facebook-s-1-amendment/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/27/facebook-s-1-amendment/#respondTue, 27 Mar 2012 22:58:54 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=408958Facebook amended its prospectus Tuesday to update would-be IPO investors on the status of two highly publicized legal matters. The company also added comScore data from January showing a 57 percent increase from 2011 in the aggregate minutes per day that users spent on the social networking site. It also addressed challenges in determining mobile […]
]]>

Facebook amended its prospectus Tuesday to update would-be IPO investors on the status of two highly publicized legal matters.

The company also added comScore data from January showing a 57 percent increase from 2011 in the aggregate minutes per day that users spent on the social networking site. It also addressed challenges in determining mobile monthly active users, added more information to the voting agreement section, and better explained how it calculates fair value.

“On March 12, 2012, Yahoo filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that alleges that a number of our products infringe the claims of ten of Yahoo’s patents,” Facebook said in the new S-1. “We have not yet filed an answer or asserted any counterclaims with respect to this complaint. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.”

Further down in the document, Facebook added that it cannot yet estimate financial damages to the company as a result of the suit. “If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this litigation, the impact could be material to our business, financial condition, or results of operations,” the company explained.

“On March 26, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Ceglia’s complaint and a motion for judgment on the pleadings,” Facebook said in the amended S-1. “We continue to believe that Mr. Ceglia is attempting to perpetrate a fraud on the court and we intend to continue to defend the case vigorously.”

On a lighter note, Facebook also plucked information from a recent comScore report to show potential buyers and advertisers that its users are more hooked than ever. “Aggregate minutes per day increased 57 percent and average minutes per user per day increased 14 percent during January 2012 as compared to January 2011,” Facebook said in a blurb added to a section on its display advertising opportunity.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/27/facebook-s-1-amendment/feed/0408958Facebook updates investors on Yahoo and Ceglia suits in amended S-1The iPad is too big to ban in China, authorities tell Proviewhttp://venturebeat.com/2012/02/15/ipad-proview-china-ban/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/15/ipad-proview-china-ban/#respondWed, 15 Feb 2012 15:07:09 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=391040Proview Technology, a firm that used to be big in the monitor market, likely won’t get its wish to ban shipments of Apple’s iPad in China. The company has made news over the last few months with its claims that the name “iPad” infringes on its patents. But Chinese customs authorities have now told the […]
]]>

Proview Technology, a firm that used to be big in the monitor market, likely won’t get its wish to ban shipments of Apple’s iPad in China.

The company has made news over the last few months with its claims that the name “iPad” infringes on its patents. But Chinese customs authorities have now told the company that they won’t assist in the dispute and that a ban on such a popular product would be difficult to implement, reports Reuters.

“The customs have told us that it will be difficult to implement a ban because many Chinese consumers love Apple products. The sheer size of the market is very big,” Proview CEO Yang Long-san told Reuters. He added, “we have applied to some local customs for the ban and they’ll report to the headquarters in Beijing.”

Proview sought to ban both imports and exports of the iPad in China, the latter of which would have caused major issues for Apple’s iPad supply worldwide, since most of Apple’s devices are built in China.

Yang now says the best resolution for both companies would be an out of court settlement. Apple already lost a case to Proview last year over the iPad trademark. Proview has hearings lined up for later this month for both the settlement talks and trademark dispute. A hefty settlement would be a boon to cash-strapped Proview, which has fallen on hard times after the 2008 financial crisis.

As VentureBeat’s Jolie O’Dell explained previously, representatives of Proview stated that Proview Taiwan, an affiliate of the Shenzhen company that did not have the legal right to represent the company in an IP transaction, sold the iPad trademark to IP Application Development, a UK company. Later, IP Application Development sold the iPad trademark to Apple, apparently unaware that the previous sale had not been authorized by the parent company.

VentureBeat is holding its second annual Mobile Summit this April 2-3 in Sausalito, Calif. The invitation-only event will debate the five key business and technology challenges facing the mobile industry today, and participants — 180 mobile executives, investors, and policymakers — will develop concrete, actionable solutions that will shape the future of the mobile industry. You can find out more at our Mobile Summit site.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/15/ipad-proview-china-ban/feed/0391040The iPad is too big to ban in China, authorities tell ProviewHoneywell slaps Nest with patent infringement suithttp://venturebeat.com/2012/02/06/honeywell-cuffs-nest-with-patent-infringment-suit/
http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/06/honeywell-cuffs-nest-with-patent-infringment-suit/#respondMon, 06 Feb 2012 20:45:09 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=386865Smart-thermostat maker Nest is being sued by Honeywell for infringing on seven different patents owned by the technology giant. “Competition is good and we welcome it, but we will not stand by while competitors, large or small, offer products that infringe on our intellectual property,” said Honeywell environmental and combustion controls president Beth Wozniak in […]
]]>

Smart-thermostat maker Nest is being sued by Honeywell for infringing on seven different patents owned by the technology giant.

“Competition is good and we welcome it, but we will not stand by while competitors, large or small, offer products that infringe on our intellectual property,” said Honeywell environmental and combustion controls president Beth Wozniak in a statement.

The Nest thermostat has become a need-to-have product for gadget-lovers. The smart thermometer learns your heating and cooling habits, and will adjust your house temperature accordingly. For instance, it knows what time you come home from work, what hours are good for energy conservation, the temperature you most like while sleeping, and whether you are on vacation. It also displays tips on saving energy money.

“We have not yet reviewed the actual filing, which we learned about this morning through Honeywell’s press release,” a Nest spokesperson told VentureBeat in an e-mail. “We will provide comment once we’ve had the opportunity to review it.”

Honeywell, which is also suing Best Buy for selling the Nest product, has its own line of connected thermostat products called the Total Connect Comfort Systems and insists that Nest infringes on a number of its existing patents. First, Honeywell believes that Nest’s setup process is too similar to its own. A “natural language” interview asks the user what her preferred hot and cold temperatures are. Another patent takes a closer look at Nest’s ability to provide energy saving tips by connecting to the Internet.

Four different patents deal with Nest’s hardware and display, three of which pertain to its circular shape. Patent number 7,584,899, the HVAC controller, addresses the ring directly (photo of which can be seen right). The last patent touches on Nest’s ability to energize itself by essentially being a safe parasite on the home’s energy system.

We have reached out to Honeywell for comment and will update upon hearing back.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/06/honeywell-cuffs-nest-with-patent-infringment-suit/feed/0386865Honeywell slaps Nest with patent infringement suitMicrosoft to pay $290M fine for patent infringementhttp://venturebeat.com/2011/06/09/supreme-court-microsoft-patent-infringement/
http://venturebeat.com/2011/06/09/supreme-court-microsoft-patent-infringement/#respondThu, 09 Jun 2011 19:53:27 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=265162The U.S. Supreme court has upheld a 2009 verdict that ordered Microsoft to pay out $290 million in fines for infringing on a patent owned by Toronto-based company i4i. The high court agreed in January to hear Microsoft’s appeal of the lawsuit, which ruled that the software giant’s Word application infringed on an i4i-owned patent […]
]]>The U.S. Supreme court has upheld a 2009 verdict that ordered Microsoft to pay out $290 million in fines for infringing on a patent owned by Toronto-based company i4i.

The high court agreed in January to hear Microsoft’s appeal of the lawsuit, which ruled that the software giant’s Word application infringed on an i4i-owned patent letting users manipulate the architecture and content of a document. The company altered its application in 2010 while filing for the appeal.

Microsoft argued that the courts should adopt a lower burden of proof for patent violations, which would make it easier for larger companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft to defend against infringement claims.

“This case raised an important issue of law which the Supreme Court itself had questioned in an earlier decision and which we believed needed resolution, While the outcome is not what we had hoped for, we will continue to advocate for changes to the law that will prevent abuse of the patent system and protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation,” Microsoft said in an official statement.

The case has been closely watched by legal analysts because of its potential to effect future patent infringement verdicts.

]]>http://venturebeat.com/2011/06/09/supreme-court-microsoft-patent-infringement/feed/0297403Microsoft to pay $290M fine for patent infringementHave the location-based patent wars begun?http://venturebeat.com/2011/03/11/location-based-patent-war/
http://venturebeat.com/2011/03/11/location-based-patent-war/#commentsFri, 11 Mar 2011 15:33:51 +0000http://venturebeat.com/?p=248131Popular location-based check-in application Foursqaure was slapped with a lawsuit today for supposedly infringing on a patent from little known company Mobile Commerce Framework, as first reported by TechCrunch. The lawsuit was filed yesterday by Mobile Commerce Framework’s legal representation Jonathan Hangartner in the Southern District of California and is claiming financial damages as well […]
]]>Popular location-based check-in application Foursqaure was slapped with a lawsuit today for supposedly infringing on a patent from little known company Mobile Commerce Framework, as first reported by TechCrunch.

The lawsuit was filed yesterday by Mobile Commerce Framework’s legal representation Jonathan Hangartner in the Southern District of California and is claiming financial damages as well as the withdrawal of all products by Foursquare to be impounded or destroyed.

The claim is that Foursquare’s application infringes the patent by allowing users to search and find information on merchants by location or merchant type. A very broad statement, which most patents tend to follow and could be applied to many of the applications available today.

Don’t think that Foursquare is going to be shutting down anytime soon, the company itself may own its own patents that could be used in defense. Like the one cofounder Dennis Crowley used to own from his days at Dodgeball titled “Location-based social software for mobile devices.”

Other services dealing in location-based services also have unique patents, including Facebook Places, which could be used in defense called “Systems and methods for automatically locating Web-based social network members” filed in 2007.

The lawsuit may be the first of many to come to Foursquare by a variety of companies. Unfortunately, it appears that Mobile Commerce Framework isn’t an active participant in the location-based services space defending one of their products, but rather just looking for a quick buck from a company that appears to be doing the best in the space. Why do we think this? Well, the company doesn’t even have a website or any other real information available.

Hopefully, the location-based patent wars haven’t begun and the space can continue to grow. We’ve emailed Foursquare CEO Dennis Crowley for comment, and will update when we hear back.